User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 22

  1. #11
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,896

    Default

    The brevity point resonates. Direct,to the point, and concise communication is definitely something that I value as well. It takes effort however and I'm not always as good at as I'd like to be.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  2. #12
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    But in your perspective you've put value to what you deem logical and illogical. In that sense, your belief system is subjective. Which clashes with your 'quest for logic'.
    As noted, logic is merely a tool of discovery. My real quest is for objective truth. Well then your claim is tantamount to the claim, an observer who goes to great measures to be as unbiased as possible is being biased by virtue of their quest to be unbiased. However, if even the most unbiased of us is biased, then it follows that your statement itself is biased and should not be confused with objective truth. Well then if what you mean demerits what you say then why is this relevant at all? Should it not be disregarded as mere child's play? After all, the skill of introspection and correct thinking consists in knowing what to disregard.

    It might be argued that a more sportsman-like approach would require that one strengthen another's argument before destroying it. Therefore, let us suppose for the time being that you are correct. According to Godel's incompleteness theorem, in any formal system there is at least one truth the system cannot itself prove, and a formal system cannot prove the consistency of itself. If then it is granted that using logic as a tool of discovery depends on assigning a value to logic, then the one truth the system cannot itself prove is the value of logic. Else if one can use logic to demonstrate the value of logic then this proves the system is completely represented by all axioms in the system and contains the seeds of its own consistency. In other words, can a person be a completely objective system that is perfectly consistent with itself and still be a person? Or will there inevitably be some statement that the system itself cannot prove within itself? The easy answer is to resign to Godel's incompleteness theorem. Yet it is not clear to me a priori that a system as such will inevitably be incomplete. After all, what is self evident to one may require proof to another. Some see 2+1=3 as self-evident; Humpty Dumpty required proof. Thus, Fluffywolf has certainly raised some issues that require extensive and elaborate thinking, an exhaustion of the alternatives, and proof either way before any conclusive position is to be formed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    I was trying to place your belief system, in a much broader perspective. Seeing it not through opinionated eyes. But from a universial perspective. In absolutes.
    I can appreciate that.

  3. #13
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    ISTJ, for your consideration.
    One can see how one might draw this conclusion. However, there is nothing in my description that precludes the possibility of an INTJ with a very high T, which is the correct interpretation. For if I was a sensing type, I would be characterized by the other features that go with it, such as living in the moment (which I don't for the most part) and adhering to traditions (which I typically see as a long succession of bad habits). Yet an extra high T can be applied to the passage and not admit these other things that are entailed by ISTJness. In short, that particular block had an ISTJ flavor but from this one cannot induce that that alone makes one an ISTJ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Brevity, my friend. Brevity.
    A person can be concise, yet have a lot to say so as to make it seem nonconcise. Yet, on a closer look one might learn that there are actually a lot of ideas generated in each sentence. Therefore, I do not think brevity is relevant in this discussion the way it is relevant in a timed presentation or paper with a word limit. Therefore, I see no reason to change this. However, if this is something you feel strongly about then no one is preventing you from not reading my posts. I wouldn't say that was untrue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    for saying so much, you offered very little.
    Sorry to disappoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    you...require empiricism to formulate an opinion.
    Careful. You do not have epistemic access to my brain. Therefore, you do not know what I require and do not require to formulate an opinion. Rationalists, for instance, are mistrustful of the emprical epistemology and methods. Instead, they rely on a rationalist epistomology that includes logic, mathematics, definitions, and reason as a methods for obtaining knowledge. Thus, we will want to be careful before supposing what another requires.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    You enjoy routine, and depend on it as an accessory to your model of thinking.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Defending a position during a debate doesn't make sense to you, as doing so requires you to inject personal bias, which destroys opportunity for advancing personal comprehension.
    This is an interesting point. Since everything is oriented around the discovery of truth, should truth be found it is the one position that may be worthy of defense. In any case, in principle I try not to say anything that cannot be defended. That which is defensible requires perception of truth; for I see no merit in defending falsehood. Therefore, I try not to say anything false. Then if one either speaks falsely, or truly, or says nothing, and speaking falsely is not an option, then by disjunction the only options are to speak truthfully or to say nothing at all. Then my position as truth-seeker is clearly defined.

    How about yourself Night?

  4. #14
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    One can see how one might draw this conclusion. However, there is nothing in my description that precludes the possibility of an INTJ with a very high T, which is the correct interpretation. For if I was a sensing type, I would be characterized by the other features that go with it, such as living in the moment (which I don't for the most part) and adhering to traditions (which I typically see as a long succession of bad habits). Yet an extra high T can be applied to the passage and not admit these other things that are entailed by ISTJness. In short, that particular block had an ISTJ flavor but from this one cannot induce that that alone makes one an ISTJ.
    Who said anything about me 'inducing' this particular megastructure of text as my final basis for rationalizing you as an ISTJ?

    Along with my global observations of your thinking, your in-thread text wall suggests ISTJ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    A person can be concise, yet have a lot to say so as to make it seem nonconcise. Yet, on a closer look one might learn that there are actually a lot of ideas generated in each sentence. Therefore, I do not think brevity is relevant in this discussion the way it is relevant in a timed presentation or paper with a word limit. Therefore, I see no reason to change this. However, if this is something you feel strongly about then no one is preventing you from not reading my posts. I wouldn't say that was untrue.
    You aren't concise. You discuss, at length, elements of thought that generally have marginal connection to your premise. I've highlighted where you do this in the enclosed quote:

    Recently, I have noticed a pattern. The pattern is this: after putting forth some different possibilities a person asks, "what do you believe?" Yet it has become so frequent in recent history that my instinct is to greet this question with an ironical smile. This smile is convoluted to say the least and reflects the frequency with which I am asked that question, my anticipation of the reaction to my answer, and perhaps a sense of shame for having tilted my head up and slightly to the left and having to actually think about what I believe. One may think that strong beliefs would not require deep contemplation, but instead should be immediate. But this is not the case with me. As soon as a person asks what I believe in I get stuck in chess, paralyzed by deep contemplation of logical combinations.

    The professor who asked me this question the other day could not have known the meaning behind the mechanical head-tilt to the upper-left followed by a crooked smile. He could not have known that the immediate answer I calculated, and always calculate when asked this question, is that I am an atheist and whenever the question of belief comes up nothing comes to me at all. If anything I have a lack thereof. The smile, the contemplation, all of that is if anything a consideration of how to answer this question in a diplomatic way. For example, I am inclined to say, "I believe in magic," with a slight ring corresponding to the popular song but that would be to mock the person asking the question. So I do not. Part of the pause and contemplation is really a reflection of how I want to go about answering the question so as to not completely condescend from heights unknown to man. They seem to put such high hopes in what I might conjure as if I am a magician or something, that I might churn out some logical combination or insight that will unearth all kinds of new ideas in them that as yet have no names. How cruel would a thinker have to be to give an answer that only mocks them for having asked the question?
    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Sorry to disappoint.
    You haven't. I was offering perspective. Why would you presume disappointment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Careful. You do not have epistemic access to my brain. Therefore, you do not know what I require and do not require to formulate an opinion. Rationalists, for instance, are mistrustful of the emprical epistemology and methods. Instead, they rely on a rationalist epistomology that includes logic, mathematics, definitions, and reason as a methods for obtaining knowledge. Thus, we will want to be careful before supposing what another requires.
    No, I don't. I simply have access to what you provide. To that end, rationalist epistemology involves empiricism as a basis for reconciling facts with supposition, Provoker. My guess wasn't far off at all. It would be like saying the Constitution doesn't rely on the Preamble as a model for justification of methodology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    This is an interesting point. Since everything is oriented around the discovery of truth, should truth be found it is the one position that may be worthy of defense. In any case, in principle I try not to say anything that cannot be defended. That which is defensible requires perception of truth; for I see no merit in defending falsehood. Therefore, I try not to say anything false. Then if one either speaks falsely, or truly, or says nothing, and speaking falsely is not an option, then by disjunction the only options are to speak truthfully or to say nothing at all. Then my position as truth-seeker is clearly defined.
    "Truth is [...] the one position worthy of defense?"

    No. Not by a long shot. As you indicated in your last post, rationalist epistemology uses a constellation of analysis, ranging from mathematics to algorithmic logic.

    This is another example of needless explication. I've highlighted where you self-obfuscate. You don't need to repeat yourself as much as you do. If I were to guess, I'd say you like the 'mystery' that your repetition creates in your audience, as it conveys the impression of depth or complexity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    How about yourself Night?
    I'm doing alright. Got a good amount of sleep last night. Planning on doing some cardio before work.

  5. #15
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Who said anything about me 'inducing' this particular megastructure of text as my final basis for rationalizing you as an ISTJ?

    Along with my global observations of your thinking, your in-thread text wall suggests ISTJ.
    Whether you are using this "megastructure of text" or that "in-thread text wall" the method of reasoning is inductive, where one begins with observations and then forms generalizations. While induction will never have the strict rigor of deduction, an inductive argument can be better or worse depending on the evidence used to support it. On that note, your argument that I am an ISTJ seems to commit at least two fallacies that make it a weak inductive argument: (1) By not taking into account all of the relevant information you have committed the forgetful induction fallacy. (2) By cherry picking bits and pieces of information that are alleged to support your view, and not considering evidence that contradicts it, you have made a hasty generalization that is based on a biased sample size. Further, it is not clear that this sample itself contributes to your hypothesis; for much of this can be explained perfectly if we suppose the person in question is an INTJ who is rather idiosyncratic and just has a higher T than most INTJs. Thus, one will want to be careful to consider all the evidence before making imprecise generalizations that do not square with reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    You aren't concise. You discuss, at length, elements of thought that generally have marginal connection to your premise.
    This too is based on a set of fallacies. If everything I have ever said was contained in that excerpt, then one might very well conclude that I am not concise. This would again be to commit a forgetful induction fallacy and put forth a rough generalization. On that note, if one were to aggregate all of my posts to see how often I go into nonessential anecdotes, one shall find it is very rare. This one itself was partially prompted by having read Dostoevsky the night before. Therefore, once more information is considered this is better understood as a short-run reversal of a long-run pattern. Still, there is something even more fundamental here. Most of what you put in bold is rather Ni in nature but I suppose that was not as useful for supporting your ISTJ hypothesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    You haven't. I was offering perspective. Why would you presume disappointment?
    Maybe I was testing your capacity for pattern recognition and nothing more. Had you responded with, "no problem, Batman," you may have impressed me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    No, I don't. I simply have access to what you provide. To that end, rationalist epistemology involves empiricism as a basis for reconciling facts with supposition, Provoker. My guess wasn't far off at all. It would be like saying the Constitution doesn't rely on the Preamble as a model for justification of methodology.
    For many rationalists, the main criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive. The hardliners such as Spinoza and Leibniz argued that all knowledge could be gained through reason alone. An example is The Foundations of Arithmetic, where Frege demonstrates that arithmetic is reducible to logic through the use of reason rather than observation. Considering this, and many other cases, it is possible to construct knowledge from reason alone. Therefore, if one can have knowledge without empirical observation than empirical observation is not a necessary requirement for knowledge. Thus, in the strict sense your claim that I require empiricism is false for some things can be known prior to experience. Yet, from a practical point of view you are quite right in saying that empiricism is necessary for considering how facts square with suppositions.



    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    "Truth is [...] the one position worthy of defense?".
    Night, why the intellectual dishonesty? I said that the truth "is the one position that may be worthy of defense." It should be noted that the one time you quote me outside of the website's formal quotation tool you misquote me. This is not a coincidence. What has taken place therefore is the construction of a straw man, a dubious device that is based on misrepresenting another's view. Still, even if one grants "is" rather than "may be" for sake of argument, you responded with "No. Not by a long shot." without providing a solid defense.

    What followed after that in your post was rather ad homish; therefore, I have no reason to spend time responding to it.

  6. #16
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Whether you are using this "megastructure of text" or that "in-thread text wall" the method of reasoning is inductive, where one begins with observations and then forms generalizations. While induction will never have the strict rigor of deduction, an inductive argument can be better or worse depending on the evidence used to support it. On that note, your argument that I am an ISTJ seems to commit at least two fallacies that make it a weak inductive argument: (1) By not taking into account all of the relevant information you have committed the forgetful induction fallacy.
    Don't presume to have a better appraisal than you do of my offered rationale. If anything, my lack of desire in properly defending my perspective would be better classified as an error of 'lazy induction', as I can't be troubled to support my stance better than I have. I have no interest in sifting through your post history to assert a perspective that really means very little more than a passing observation offered for your edification.

    As I initially stated, I offered ISTJ 'for your consideration'. I didn't tailor position beyond that simple statement, except when pressed to give additional support to my findings. Your in/compatibility is one of personal reconciliation.

    Just make sure you are accurate with your rebuttal. You haven't really produced up to this point, Provoker.

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    (2) By cherry picking bits and pieces of information that are alleged to support your view, and not considering evidence that contradicts it, you have made a hasty generalization that is based on a biased sample size. Further, it is not clear that this sample itself contributes to your hypothesis; for much of this can be explained perfectly if we suppose the person in question is an INTJ who is rather idiosyncratic and just has a higher T than most INTJs. Thus, one will want to be careful to consider all the evidence before making imprecise generalizations that do not square with reality.
    Such is the nature of online interaction, Provoker. My investment in my claim is such that I'm truly unconcerned with how you receive it, to the extent that I'm unwilling to excavate falsifiable findings to support my claim. Develop judgment on that stance how you will.

    As an aside, it's clear you're at a hypocritical deficit here. I wonder: have you taken the time to substantiate your claim (sans a cherry-picking approach) to support your flirtatious boasting (see the highlighted phrase) that your T is ostensibly higher than mine?

    How coy of you. Next time, be direct. There's no need to retreat behind obfuscation. It's really not all that important what I believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    This too is based on a set of fallacies. If everything I have ever said was contained in that excerpt, then one might very well conclude that I am not concise. This would again be to commit a forgetful induction fallacy and put forth a rough generalization. On that note, if one were to aggregate all of my posts to see how often I go into nonessential anecdotes, one shall find it is very rare. This one itself was partially prompted by having read Dostoevsky the night before. Therefore, once more information is considered this is better understood as a short-run reversal of a long-run pattern. Still, there is something even more fundamental here. Most of what you put in bold is rather Ni in nature but I suppose that was not as useful for supporting your ISTJ hypothesis.
    I think I'm beginning to understand how seriously you take online exchange, Provoker. You submit that, in order to adequately define and defend an offered precept, one should do his due diligent analysis in researching his subject material. How funny.

    I've got to be honest, Provoker - I don't take online debates nearly as seriously as you apparently do. I don't have any interest in performing extensive research into the peccadilloes of my subject matter. It's just not that important to me. Were we in a formal setting, my approach would certainly differ. As it stands, I've nothing to gain from outgunning you in a debate. Nothing but wasted time...

    As a fun addendum, you aren't as rigorous as you'd like to think. Briefly, it's clear you endeavor to sneak personal opinion on the nature of what you believe constitutes 'concise' vs. 'non-concise' with your personal approach as ostensibly 'concise'. If this isn't the case, you haven't provided substrate to the contrary. Ergo, your distinction forms the basis for what you understand to be 'concise' within the context of our discussion without offering independent variables that could suitably debase your hypothesis.

    Bad form, Provoker. Your sample set is marred by observer bias.

    Maybe you don't take this as seriously as I thought...

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Maybe I was testing your capacity for pattern recognition and nothing more. Had you responded with, "no problem, Batman," you may have impressed me.
    No - I'm quite aware that I haven't impressed you. I haven't cited long-dead philosophers or made errors of redundancy or breezy appeals to intellectual authority. What's more, I am direct with my thoughts.

    No. Had I impressed you, I would have certainly disappointed myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    For many rationalists, the main criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive. The hardliners such as Spinoza and Leibniz argued that all knowledge could be gained through reason alone. An example is The Foundations of Arithmetic, where Frege demonstrates that arithmetic is reducible to logic through the use of reason rather than observation. Considering this, and many other cases, it is possible to construct knowledge from reason alone. Therefore, if one can have knowledge without empirical observation than empirical observation is not a necessary requirement for knowledge. Thus, in the strict sense your claim that I require empiricism is false for some things can be known prior to experience. Yet, from a practical point of view you are quite right in saying that empiricism is necessary for considering how facts square with suppositions.
    I've read all this before - just summarized better and with greater fluency of comprehension.

    I'm familiar with undergraduate philosophy themes: Do you have any personal thoughts on what constitutes variant forms of knowledge (propositional v. belief v. logical positivism...etc.) as it applies to my initial read that you prefer empiricism?


    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Night, why the intellectual dishonesty? I said that the truth "is the one position that may be worthy of defense." It should be noted that the one time you quote me outside of the website's formal quotation tool you misquote me. This is not a coincidence. What has taken place therefore is the construction of a straw man, a dubious device that is based on misrepresenting another's view. Still, even if one grants "is" rather than "may be" for sake of argument, you responded with "No. Not by a long shot." without providing a solid defense.

    What followed after that in your post was rather ad homish; therefore, I have no reason to spend time responding to it.
    Well, my, my - how well the termites have dined. Cherry-picking, for your consideration.

    Please - if you opt to respond, do so in a manner that is in fact concise and direct. I don't feel like sifting through another eyesore of text in a failing effort to parse lettered from unlettered thoughts.

    If I wanted to read a novel, I'd select a better author.

  7. #17
    Senior Member paintmuffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    eNTP
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    (1) I do not believe in disorder; for rules entail order. As such, when people say things like "I'm disorganized" they are really referring to their lack of efficiency rather than any objective statement about the organization of the world.

    (2) I do not believe in spiritualism or mysticism of any kind. But, I do think it is a reasonable conjecture that there are life forms elsewhere in the galaxy; after all, we were able to form.
    Wow, I could have WRITTEN this post. I completely agree with everything you've said.
    Maybe I'm INTJ after all!
    A colleague of the great scientist James Watson remarked that Watson was always “lounging around, arguing about problems instead of doing experiments.” He concluded that “There is more than one way of doing good science.”
    It was Watson’s form of idleness, the scientist went on to say, that allowed him to solve “the greatest of all biological problems: the discovery of the structure of DNA.” It's a point worth remembering in a society overly concerned with efficiency.

  8. #18
    Junior Member Anastar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Provoker, have you ever thought of the possibility that you might be an INTP? The way you write and structure your sentences, your sense of routine, it all sounds very Ti, more specifically INTP to me. I have some INTP friends(my brother is also one) and they just sound very similar to you.

    I have also noticed a pattern that the INTP's here seem to be able to relate to you, more than likely due to the similar patterns in thinking(Ti).

    Anyway, this was just an observation I made based off your post. XD

  9. #19
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    I am loving this thread.

  10. #20
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Provoker, you honestly think you both speak and write with concision?!?!!?



    Really?

    Because, from my experiences with you on vent, and through reading *some* of your posts on here, and even listening/watching some of your youtube vids, you tend to, er... I guess, what some would consider as expounding and others as prattling, well, you tend to expound/prattle on.

    You kinda remind me of SolitaryWalker, different themes, similar styles.

    Kisses,

    S.Sapienne

    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

Similar Threads

  1. I need something to believe in
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-15-2008, 10:50 PM
  2. Do you believe in natural rights?
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-26-2008, 01:27 PM
  3. Do you believe in a higher power?
    By ygolo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 08:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO